This file was automatically created via the Repro package (version 0.1.0) using R version 4.0.1 (2020-06-06)
Parametric Bootstrap Test method to evaluate significance of fixed effects in mixed-effects models (using MLE fit, nsim = 5000) and Bayes Factor from mixed models (see Wagenmakers, 2007)
| Placebo M (SD)/N (%) | Liraglutide M (SD)/N (%) | Test | |
|---|---|---|---|
| BMI | -0.20 (0.91) | 0.00 (0.90) | t(df=47) = -0.78, p = .438, d = 0.22 |
| AGE | 40.27 (13.74) | 38.61 (11.72) | t(df=47) = 0.45, p = .653, d = 0.13 |
| GENDER | Chi-square = 0.35, df = 1, p = .556, Phi = 0.08 | ||
| Men | 10 (38.5) | 7 (30.4) | |
| Women | 16 (61.5) | 16 (69.6) |
Box-plot of all biomedical predictors per intervention.
Using penalized (lasso) maximum likelihood for variable selection (cv.glmnet), i.e. finding the minimum lambda (regularization parameter) to infer the best number of features to use in order to simplify the model and avoid overfitting.
Using that because:
- Handles the problem of correlated inputs - Perform better than stepwise selection
## [1] "BW_diff" "BMI_diff" "X2.AG_diff" "reelin_diff"
## [5] "MCP_diff" "TNFalpha_diff" "GLP_diff" "Glu_diff"
| Estimates | 95% CI | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indirect effect mediated through X2.AG_diff | -0.023 | (-0.313, 0.242) | 0.848 |
| Indirect effect mediated through reelin_diff | -0.105 | (-0.580, 0.270) | 0.592 |
| Indirect effect mediated through MCP_diff | 0.002 | (-0.199, 0.207) | 0.990 |
| Indirect effect mediated through TNFalpha_diff | -0.033 | (-0.271, 0.121) | 0.716 |
| Indirect effect mediated through GLP_diff | 0.075 | (-0.500, 0.669) | 0.814 |
| Indirect effect mediated through Glu_diff | -0.373 | (-0.979, 0.079) | 0.112 |
| Direct effect | 3.184 | (1.035, 5.442) | 0.010 |
| Total effect | 2.830 | (0.247, 5.442) | 0.032 |
| Effect | ηp2 | 90% CI | F(1, 42) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| intervention | .506 | 0.316 - 0.624 | 43.00 | < 0.001 |
| gender | .011 | 0.000 - 0.108 | 0.46 | 0.500 |
| age | .095 | 0.002 - 0.245 | 4.41 | 0.042 |
| Date_diff | < 0.001 | 0.000 - NA | 0.00 | 0.971 |
Model assumptions.
Weight Loss by intervention.
Latency = time to detect the target (ms) & condition = CS+ or CS-
| Predictors | Estimates | std. Error | CI | χ² | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| condition [1] | 13.39 | 2.93 | 7.65 – 19.14 | 17.69 | < 0.001 |
| intervention [1] | -16.75 | 12.75 | -41.74 – 8.23 | 1.64 | 0.200 |
| session [1] | -7.76 | 8.42 | -24.26 – 8.75 | 0.84 | 0.358 |
| age | 30.28 | 11.83 | 7.09 – 53.47 | 5.74 | 0.017 |
| gender [1] | -6.94 | 12.14 | -30.74 – 16.85 | 0.32 | 0.574 |
| BMI_V1 | -14.63 | 11.90 | -37.96 – 8.69 | 1.37 | 0.241 |
| thirsty | 28.66 | 11.39 | 6.33 – 50.99 | 5.51 | 0.019 |
| hungry | -20.10 | 11.41 | -42.45 – 2.25 | 3.01 | 0.083 |
| condition [1] *intervention [1] | -1.00 | 2.94 | -6.76 – 4.75 | 0.11 | 0.735 |
| condition [1] * session[1] | -4.07 | 2.72 | -9.40 – 1.25 | 2.16 | 0.141 |
| intervention [1] *session [1] | -11.75 | 8.38 | -28.17 – 4.68 | 1.89 | 0.170 |
| condition [1] * age | -5.41 | 2.64 | -10.58 – -0.25 | 3.97 | 0.046 |
| (condition [1] intervention [1]) session [1] | -2.08 | 2.72 | -7.40 – 3.24 | 0.58 | 0.448 |
| ICC | N id | N trialxcondition | Observations | Marginal R2 / Conditional R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.43 | 64 | 20 | 3888 | 0.067 / 0.472 |
Model assumptions.
Latency by pavlvovian cue.
Ratings = how pleasant is the clue (0-100, no repetitions) & condition = CS+ or CS-
| Effect | ηp2 | 90% CI | F(1, 43) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| condition | .284 | 0.154 - 0.488 | 17.05 | < 0.001 |
| intervention | .069 | 0.000 - 0.210 | 3.21 | 0.080 |
| age | .005 | 0.000 - 0.086 | 0.22 | 0.644 |
| gender | .054 | 0.000 - 0.188 | 2.48 | 0.123 |
| BMI_V1 | < 0.001 | 0.000 - 0.044 | 0.03 | 0.862 |
| session | .064 | 0.000 - 0.233 | 2.93 | 0.094 |
| intervention:session | < 0.001 | 0.000 - 0.034 | 0.02 | 0.891 |
| intervention:condition | < 0.001 | 0.000 - 0.058 | 0.06 | 0.806 |
| session:condition | .021 | 0.000 - 0.138 | 0.94 | 0.337 |
| intervention:session:condition | .049 | 0.000 - 0.181 | 2.23 | 0.143 |
Model assumptions.
Pleasantness Ratings by pavlvovian cue.
grips = number of times participant exceeded the force threshold to acquire the reward (Milkshake) spline = first 5 trials (1st degree), last 20 trials (2nd degree)
| Model | BF10 |
|---|---|
| Factorial early/late Learning Phasis | 1 |
| Linear Time Fit | 1.41e+06 |
| Quadratic Time Fit | 1.47e+04 |
| Piecewise Regression with Splines | 1.05e+08 |
| Predictors | Estimates | std. Error | CI | χ² | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| intervention [1] | 0.32 | 0.76 | -1.17 – 1.80 | 0.17 | 0.678 |
| session [1] | -0.38 | 0.38 | -1.13 – 0.37 | 0.98 | 0.321 |
| age | -0.80 | 0.76 | -2.29 – 0.69 | 1.08 | 0.300 |
| gender [1] | 0.64 | 0.81 | -0.95 – 2.22 | 0.62 | 0.432 |
| BMI_V1 | -0.82 | 0.83 | -2.44 – 0.80 | 0.96 | 0.326 |
| thirsty | 1.39 | 0.65 | 0.12 – 2.65 | 4.40 | 0.036 |
| hungry | -0.74 | 0.70 | -2.10 – 0.62 | 1.06 | 0.304 |
| intervention [1] *session [1] | -0.41 | 0.39 | -1.17 – 0.35 | 1.09 | 0.297 |
| session [1] * thirsty | -0.72 | 0.44 | -1.58 – 0.14 | 2.65 | 0.103 |
| ICC | N id | N trial | Observations | Marginal R2 / Conditional R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.78 | 63 | 24 | 2640 | 0.067 / 0.793 |
Model assumptions.
Number of Grips over time by session.
Mobilized effort = Area Under the Curve (AUC) of the force exerted exceeding the delivery threshold during Pavlvovian cue presentation condition = CS+ or CS-
| Predictors | Estimates | std. Error | CI | χ² | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| condition [1] | -7.81 | 3.19 | -14.07 – -1.55 | 5.66 | 0.017 |
| intervention [1] | -5.79 | 10.01 | -25.41 – 13.83 | 0.33 | 0.564 |
| session [1] | -0.36 | 7.00 | -14.07 – 13.36 | 0.00 | 0.959 |
| age | 27.40 | 9.89 | 8.01 – 46.79 | 7.08 | 0.008 |
| gender [1] | 3.62 | 10.34 | -16.65 – 23.90 | 0.10 | 0.750 |
| BMI_V1 | -14.97 | 10.18 | -34.92 – 4.97 | 2.01 | 0.157 |
| thirsty | 3.25 | 9.48 | -15.33 – 21.82 | 0.11 | 0.742 |
| hungry | 5.45 | 9.86 | -13.89 – 24.78 | 0.27 | 0.601 |
| condition [1] *intervention [1] | 0.18 | 3.19 | -6.08 – 6.44 | 0.00 | 0.956 |
| condition [1] * session[1] | 1.87 | 2.46 | -2.95 – 6.70 | 0.57 | 0.450 |
| intervention [1] *session [1] | 3.78 | 6.99 | -9.92 – 17.49 | 0.29 | 0.589 |
| (condition [1] intervention [1]) session [1] | -2.24 | 2.46 | -7.07 – 2.59 | 0.82 | 0.366 |
| ICC | N id | N trialxcondition | Observations | Marginal R2 / Conditional R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.75 | 64 | 15 | 3300 | 0.073 / 0.771 |
Model assumptions.
Mobilized effort by pavlovian cue.
Perceived liking = how pleasant is the liquid solution rated (0-100, with repetitions) & condition = Milshake or Tasteless & intensity = difference on how intense the liquid solution were rated
| Predictors | Estimates | std. Error | CI | χ² | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| condition [1] | -6.57 | 1.37 | -9.25 – -3.89 | 80.15 | < 0.001 |
| intervention [1] | -0.18 | 1.37 | -2.87 – 2.50 | 0.00 | 0.999 |
| session [1] | 2.70 | 0.89 | 0.95 – 4.45 | 0.00 | 0.999 |
| age | 0.69 | 1.20 | -1.67 – 3.05 | 0.00 | 0.966 |
| gender [1] | -2.34 | 1.26 | -4.81 – 0.13 | 1.91 | 0.167 |
| BMI_V1 | -0.77 | 1.24 | -3.20 – 1.65 | 1.60 | 0.206 |
| thirsty | -0.73 | 1.16 | -3.00 – 1.54 | 11.01 | 0.001 |
| hungry | 2.08 | 1.18 | -0.24 – 4.39 | 0.85 | 0.357 |
| int | 0.37 | 1.13 | -1.84 – 2.58 | 0.00 | 0.999 |
| fam | -3.30 | 1.05 | -5.36 – -1.25 | 3.12 | 0.077 |
| condition [1] *intervention [1] | -0.33 | 1.37 | -3.01 – 2.35 | 5.40 | 0.020 |
| condition [1] * session[1] | -1.49 | 0.70 | -2.87 – -0.12 | 0.15 | 0.700 |
| intervention [1] *session [1] | -0.67 | 0.90 | -2.43 – 1.09 | 0.00 | 0.999 |
| (condition [1] intervention [1]) session [1] | 0.19 | 0.70 | -1.19 – 1.57 | 0.62 | 0.431 |
| ICC | N id | N trialxcondition | Observations | Marginal R2 / Conditional R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.74 | 64 | 20 | 4400 | 0.156 / 0.779 |
Model assumptions.
Perceived liking (Taste) by solution.
check out “analysis_LIRA_fMRI.R” for more details
Contrast Post > Pre in HF| Effect | ηp2 | 90% CI | F(1, 38) | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| intervention | .345 | 0.145 - 0.498 | 20.01 | < 0.001 |
| BMI_diff | .119 | 0.007 - 0.281 | 5.14 | 0.029 |
| age | .171 | 0.027 - 0.337 | 7.84 | 0.008 |
Model assumptions.
Beta estimates from hippocampal formation during Hedonic reactivity test (Post > Pre) by intervention and correlation with weight loss.
| Estimates | 95% CI | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Indirect effect mediated through HF | -0.484 | (-1.034, -0.045) | 0.032 |
| Direct effect | 3.226 | (2.512, 3.943) | < 0.001 |
| Total effect | 2.742 | (2.073, 3.348) | < 0.001 |
| Proportion of effect mediated through HF | -0.170 |
Mediation path.
Beta estimates from hippocampal formation during Hedonic reactivity testby session by intervention.
## png
## 2
Beta estimates from OFC during Hedonic reactivity test by session by intervention.
## png
## 2